Antique use of the term

The word oppidum was used by Caesar
in De Bello Gallico, in which he reports about his warfare
against the Gauls. The sites referred to as oppida are described as fortified
settlements, which represent the central place for a tribe. Some
tribes had several of these places. Caesar describes Bibracte in more
detail and mentions senate meetings and an election
(Collis, 1997).
According to this, it is assumed
that the word oppidum in Caesars usage is intended to mean
town, especially as some of these places are also mentioned as
urbs. On the other hand he is using the word oppidum
for merely defensive sites in Britain, which had no central place
function. Collis thinks that
this is due to translation
from Gallic informants, who called these sites *dunon, which
was translated oppidum, even though the meaning did not quite
match.

Archaeological definition

In France the term oppidum is used for every fortified Iron Age
settlement; while in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Germany
the word oppidum is more a technical term for large (over 20-30 ha)
fortified Late Iron Age settlements, thus excluding hillforts, which
are smaller than 20-30 ha, and settlements like the Heuneburg, which
is comparatively small and of Early Iron Age date.
The use of the term oppidum is variable in Britain, as some authors rely
on the Czech, Slovakian and German scheme, while others rely on
Caesar's second hand description of British oppida, and thus include
merely defensive sites with little or no habitation as well as small
sites into their definition (Collis, 1984;
Avery, 1976).

Further characteristics

The chief characteristics of oppida have just been mentioned, but
there are more details to be added to the picture especially
concerning regional variances. But a word of caution is necessary,
because only few of the oppida have been excavated to any larger extent.
Most of the assumptions are based on a few well excavated sites (like
Bibracte, Manching, Staré Hradisko
and Hrazany). Often enough only the ramparts have been investigated,
because of the enormous size of the oppida, which makes settlement
archaeology difficult, especially if a representative insight in the
settlement history and the internal organization of the site are the
aim (Wells 1984,
1987).

Emergence of oppida

It is assumed that the first oppida appeared in the Czech Republic,
Slovakia, and southern Germany. Some of the oppida date into La Tène
C21.
In La Tène D1 more
sites in central Europe emerge, for example in southern and middle
Germany, Switzerland, Luxemburg, and France. Finally, around
50 BC and later, more sites in France and the first ones in
Britain appear (Collis, 1984).

Distribution and siting

True oppida occur in France, middle and southern Germany,
Switzerland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary
(Wells, 1984).
In adjoining areas we find similar developments, which do not exactly match the
definition of oppida, but share some of their features. Also
true oppida show regional variances in size, occupation,
fortification etc.(Collis, 1995).

The oppida themselves are usually situated in easily
defensible
positions, like hilltops (e.g.Bibracte, Dünsberg) and peninsulae
formed by river loops (e.g. Berne-Engehalbinsel,
Altenburg-Rheinau)2. Often these
sites were chosen for defence purposes, and not for their accessibility
or their proximity to
trade routes. In many cases this meant that the sites had no former
history, i.e. they did not naturally evolve out of smaller
settlements, but were consciously created
(Collis, 1997).
Their development was usually rapid. When an oppidum was founded the
population of the surrounding area concentrated in it. Often this
concentration lasted only for a few generations, then the sites were
abandoned for more accessible places, or survived as little villages.
Nevertheless some of the Gaulish oppida
evolved into Roman towns (e.g.Bibracte or Paris)
(Collis, 1995).

Size

Woolf states that usually a minimum
size of 20-25 ha is
asserted for oppida. Collis sets his threshold at 30 ha, to
separate oppida from hillforts. He maps 59 of these sites in Europe.

The differences in size can be enormous. Most sites are
small, but the largest have 300 ha and more, for example Altenburg-Rheinau
315 ha, Manching 380 ha, Kelheim 600 ha, Heidengraben 1662 ha
(Kuckenburg, 1993).
Size is one of the criteria for oppida which is often neglected
by authorsin particular when the site shows other criteria which are commonly
associated with oppida. This is especially true
for France (especially northern France has a large amount of smaller
oppida-like settlements) and
Britain3.

Fortification

Fortification is one of the main characteristics for an oppidum, but as
mentioned by Woolf,
probably not a very good one.
The fact that fortification seemed to be a central feature of oppida
goes back to Caesar and his description of these sites in De Bello Gallico.

The ramparts show regional variation, and usually four different
construction techniques are mentioned: Preist-Altkönig, Hollingbury,
murus gallicus and Kelheim
(Collis, 1975). In addition to
these there is the Ehrang
construction (like the murus gallicus but without nails
(Audouze, 1992)) which is usually
incorporated into the group of
muri gallici. These are only principle construction schemata,
which in reality appear with different kinds of variation. Almost every
oppidum has a special type of rampart constructionif not
several (Leicht, 2000). Nevertheless there
are differences in the
distribution of the main fortification types
(see Audouze, 1992: fig. 50),
(Woolf, 1993).
In France muri gallici prevail, while in the more eastern
regions (Germany, Slovakia and the Czech Republic) various
layouts of the timber-framed wall are preferred
(Endert, 1987).

Gates are another important feature of the fortification, they differ
roughly in their use through time. The
main types according to Collis are:
the simple gap, the
overlapping entrance, the inturned entrance and the
Zangentor4,
and hornworks. Of these gate types all but the hornworks %I am not too sure
%whether one of the gates might have a tutulus in front of it\ldots
appear at the Dünsberg.

The last thing left to mention about the fortification is the
complexity of enclosures. Collis
mentions that outside
Britain most of the complex enclosures with more than two ramparts
are confined to the Mittelgebirge5, to which belongs the Dünsberg.

Coming back to the problem of defenses as a necessary attribute for
oppidasome authors like Hill
think it would be better
to judge sites by the action that took place in them and not on the
fact whether or not they had fortifications. He is taking up
arguments offered by Woolf,
who stated that the
fortified nucleated settlements were not really different in use, size
etc. from their unfortified neighbours. On the other hand he
acknowledges the communal efforts to establish these huge
fortifications, and assumes that these were just reactions to a thread or a
crisis. As a confirmation for this thesis the development of Manching
could be cited, or other oppida where the buildings were not confined
to the area inside the walls, but where the settlement continued
outside as well6.
On the other hand we know of deliberate foundations
(see section siting).

Collis also mentions sites,
which lie outside the
boundaries of the oppida civilization, for example the
Zemplín type settlements in Slovakia and Hungary, which are
concentrated habitation sites around a small fortification. They have
otherwise all the characteristics of oppida: trade, industry,
nucleation etc.. In France on the other hand we have small
fortified and unfortified settlements, which show the traits
of oppida only at a smaller scale. He even adds fortified sites in
Spain and Portugal to the picture, which are the size of Gaulish
oppida, but were already in existence before the Roman conquest in the 2nd
cent. BC. He continues to describe the British
oppida and mentions their unusual siting in the valleys
and the lowland, as well as their small settlements in the often huge
embanked area, where the fortification seems to have been a prestige
object. Their role in trade and crafts is unknown.

All these peripheral sites share some aspects of the oppida but not
others. It is certainly difficult to decide in which way to broaden
(or not to broaden) the term oppida, or to come up with more
meaningful definitions, although this is not the aim of this work.

Duration of use

In the east oppida usually stayed in use
for about a century or longer
(Wells, 1984), but
Collis
mentions that some places in France had a use of less than a
generation. They were then abandoned for some other settlement. He
uses an example where four sites (Corent, Gondole,
Gergovie, and Augustonemetum) followed each other in a rapid succession
and other regions witnessed similar developments. Nevertheless some French
sites had more continuity as they lived on as Roman towns
(see section siting).

Are oppida urban?

One of the most controversial points related to oppida is the question
whether they really were urban settlements, as Caesar described them to be.
This question is hard to answer, because only a few sites have
undergone modern large-scale excavation, and the surrounding area of
these places is even less investigated, so that their role as central
places stays obscure. The best excavated and most cited
oppidum is Manching, which is in many respects not a typical
site. The same accounts for Bibracte, which developed into a Roman
town, and in turn effaced the underlying Pre-Roman remains. So the
focus for the following questions has to rely on less well
excavated sites, which obviously leaves a lot of questions unanswered.

Trade

It is not entirely clear how important trade was for the
development of oppida. Remains of imported goods such as
amphorae
have been found in settlements, but long distance trade with the
Mediterranean existed long before the oppida came into being.

Most of the traded goods stayed near the border to the Mediterranean
cultures, so that in central and southern Gaul large amounts of wine
amphorae were found, while their quantity decreases in the inner
regions of France (Collis, 1995). Antique sources mention the
trade of iron objects between the Romans and the the residents of
Noricum. More information about this trade comes from graffitis in
Magdalensberg. Further we are told about the exchange of slaves for
wine by antique authors, while trade goods like Campanian fine wares,
or silver bowls appear at the oppida themselves
(Collis, 1997).
The question is whether this trade really
played such an important role as is often suggestedeven the whole
existence of oppida is ascribed to it
(Wells, 1987). I
think that the trade with the Mediterranean was not so important.

Besides the long distance trade, which was according to classical
authors organized by Italians7,
there is also local trade and trade between oppida(Collis, 1997).
Raw materials for production in the oppida could come from
considerable distances. For example, the graphite clay for the
potteries in Manching was transported over 200 km from Passau. On the
other hand the trade of raw iron seems to have ceased, and now the
finished goods were traded. Goods manufactured at the oppida were
distributed to the surrounding areas, like the painted wares from
Stradonice which can be found in the whole of Bohemia. Finished
graphite ware cooking pots were also widely distributed
(Collis, 1997).
How this trade was organized is unclear.

Industry

There is plenty of evidence for manufacturing in the oppida. Iron
working took place in all of them, and also bronze casting, glass
manufacture, pottery making, coin minting, textile production, bone
and antler carving, and jewelry manufacture
(Wells, 1984).
Collis even goes so far as to mention
mass production of
for example brooches and belthooks, which now had stereotypical patterns. On
the other hand a lot of specialized tools were produced: for
agriculture, crafts, personal adornment, household equipment, wagons,
horse gear, and warfare (Collis, 1984).
Závist contained 85
different blacksmithy products, while in Hrazany about 65 different
objects were produced (Drda, 1995).
Pottery production also
became more industrialized. For example almost 75 percent of the pottery in
Manching was manufactured on the potters wheel
(Collis, 1997).

Cult

Cult related finds in oppida are very rare or not easily
identified. In Manching some
round buildings with a rectangular ditch enclosing them are taken for
temples, one of these buildings has hoards associated with it.
A cult-tree (a gilded branch with leafs, together with a gilded
sheath) was found, as well as remains of a horse statue made from iron.
The horse statue was discovered close to a hoard of
weapons, and the fact that the horse was destroyed and its remains
scattered is taken as further evidence for a battle at the end of the
2nd century BC in which some of the sanctuaries were looted and
destroyed (Sievers, 1999,
1993).
During the excavations at Manching huge amounts of weapons and human
bones were found. Some of the weapons were too bent to be the remains of a
fight, and the bones were mainly skulls and longbones. The skulls
might represent trophies, which were taken from defeated opponents,
while the longbones were cut from decomposing bodies, freed from the
flesh and finally the joints were removed. Both kinds of bone were kept for
some time, before they were discarded. That sculls were kept as
trophies is reported by classical authors. The longbones could belong
to some kind of ancestry cult
(Sievers, 1999).
There are a few cases of cult related sites found inside
oppida, for example there are a few rectangular enclosures
(Viereckschanzen)8
in the oppidum of Závist, but most of the
sites are outside the settlements (Wells, 1990).

On the other hand it is remarkable that a few of the oppida lost their
importance as occupational sites, but continued in use as gallo-roman
temple (e.g. the Martberg)9.
This indicates that some of the sites
must have had some religious function already in Celtic times which
continued to be of importance.

Coinage

Gold coins were known from earlier Celtic contexts, but they were rather a means
for storing wealth than for payment. The situation changed in the late
second century BC when low value silver and potin coins were
appearing (Collis, 1995).
Almost every oppidum seems to have minted coins (even though there
are coins, which were not produced in oppida, but came from open
settlements (Wells, 1990)), but they usually did not leave the area immediately
surrounding the oppida. The coins minted in Stradonice, for example,
are normally
not found outside of a radius of 30 km around the oppidum, and thus we can
assume that trade was not managed on a monetary basis
(Collis, 1997).
The origins of the coins can often be traced, because
many of them bear legends naming the local rulers
(Wells, 1990).

Central places for the area

One of the criteria Woolf mentions to
be essential for
his concept of urbanism is that there has to be a functional
differentiation between sites. This would mean that the oppida, if
they have any function as a central place at all, would need smaller
sites, which they dominate. For one thing not enough research has gone
into this, but what has been observed so far is that there are no
secondary settlements near oppida. What is rather the case, is that
minor settlements were abandoned in favour of the oppidum, as soon as it
was established. If there are larger open settlements they seem to
have had the same role as the defended oppida and were not subordinate
to them, that is if trade can be used as an indicator for economic dependency.
Products from the oppida were either evenly distributed in their
hinterland10, or they did not leave the
immediate area surrounding the oppida at all11.

Collis is also aware of the fact
that the oppida did not
form any kind of economic, trading and defensive network. He bases his
assumption on the fact that
some sites in the the German Mittelgebirge (among them the Dünsberg)
were still inhabited in Augustan times even though in France and
Southern Germany the oppida had already been abandoned for a generation
or more.

Population

Population size

There have been different attempts to judge the size of the population.
A major drawback is that usually no cemeteries belonging to the oppida
can be detected. Thus the estimates are highly variable, according to
the methods used to make them12. Numbers mentioned range from 3000-5000 inhabitants
per oppidum(Wells, 1990).
For Bohemian oppida several thousand
persons are estimated (Závist: 3400, Staré Hradisko: 5000),
while the population for Manching, based on the quantity of meat
represented by animal bones, was estimated at 1700
(Wells, 1984).
Other authors propose population sizes of 1000-2000 persons per
oppidum. %who? e.g.
The more moderate estimates seem in this case the more likely
guesses (Wells, 1984: 171).

Zoning

Some of the oppida show signs of a deliberate layout with a
rectangular grid pattern, where houses and streets follow the major
axes (Wells, 1984).
These patterns are attested for Staré
Hradisko and Manching. The latter site even provides evidence for a
major change in orientation to this grid pattern. This in turn gives
us proof of the internal organization at work inside the oppida(Sievers, 1999).
Both afore mentioned sites have traces of fences, which divide the
area into units. These units are interpreted as farmsteads which are
joined together to bigger settlement blocks.
Wells
assumes that 95 percent of the population in the oppida were farmers,
and that they may have worked as craftsmen and merchants during the
winter. Still it is obvious that there must have been a small
number of professional
craftsmen as well, especially regarding the high specialization in
tools found inside the oppida, and regarding the diversity of tasks
carried out. Drda mention smithies,
mints, jewellery,
and other metallurgical workshops, which are specialized,
tannery, coopery, casketry, joinery, wheelwright's
work and lathe turning. Further crafts can be assumed of which no
evidence survived (e.g. basket-making, dye-making).

Drda state that there are only a
few places which were obviously
used as sites of workshops, but it can be
observed that certain productions took place in the same areas in
different oppida. These workshop places can be found either:
in the vicinity of gates, in
the homesteads and, in special cases, extra muros. And
further: The presumption
that these craftsmen worked in the enclosed areas of farmsteads, in
smaller homesteads or in dwellings bordering the main trackways
(roads) in the oppidum is valid.

Wells proposes that there are
two types of sitessites
with a distinction between residential areas, workshops and areas of
political activity (Bibracte and Manching are named as examples), and
sites (like Staré Hradisko) where farmsteads are grouped together
as units, but no differentiation of agriculture, craft, and the public
sector is evidentevery farmstead incorporates all of these criteria.

Woolf refuses to see any evidence of
zoning in oppida at
all. In this model a town needs distinct quarters for residence,
crafts and agriculture, as well as zoning by social class. This
differentiation is not evident in oppida, especially as a division by
only a few hundred meters between differently used areas is not enough for
him.

Evidence for zoning has been found in Manching where an area
predominantly used for crafts was discovered .
Nevertheless the excavators seem inclined to believe that the area was used
exclusively for crafts, because the moist soil was not suitable for residential
buildings (Sievers, 2000: 391).

My opinion on the question of zoning is that
Woolf is thinking
in too modern terms,
spatial division between living and working areas is a rather recent
development, which I would attribute to the dawn of the industrial revolution and
the emergence of manufactures. In Roman towns there might have been
residential areas for the elite, but this is due to the fact that the
Roman elite did not work in agriculture or crafts.
So I would rather
agree with him that we are here looking at a local variation on
urbanism peculiar to Iron Age Europe.

Land utilization in oppida

Oppida do not only consist of occupied regions, they usually include
empty areas as well. The use of this land could have been diverse, at
Manching it is assumed, that wet areas were used as pastures for
cattle (Kuckenburg, 1993),
while drier areas might have
provided arable land for some of the farmers inside the
oppidum(Sievers, 1999).
This area could also provide space for the population of the surrounding
settlements at times of war (i.e. act as an refuge
(Dehn, 1962)).
For both of these uses lower ground had to be
included into the fortification. It is also attested that sources of
water were deliberately incorporated into the oppida(Avery, 1976).
One example would be the Grinchesweiher and the Schulborn at the
Dünsberg.

Why did oppida emerge?

Most of the researchers think that the emergence of oppida was in
some way related to the trade with the Mediterranean
(Wells, 1984,
1987; Collis,
1993,
1995).
A competition
started for the luxury goods imported from the south so that the iron
industry was intensified, slaves could be obtained through warfare
(which would stimulate the need for defence). Social and political
changes came to pass, which in turn lead to settlement nucleation in form of
the oppida.

If we would only look at France, we could at least agree that trade
was a factor in the process of oppida development, because there the
oppida emerged at about the same time when the trade with the south
began to flourish, but having a look at the wider picture we see that
the trade theory has not much footing indeed.
Collis
included maps of imported Mediterranean goods from the Iron Age. They
show that most of the imports (mainly wine) reached southern and
central France, but at the same time almost no imports reached Slovakia, the Czech
Republic or Germany, and these were the first places where oppida
emerged. In addition the oppida were built before the trade with
the Mediterranean became important. Even though
Collis
realized this
discrepancy he offered no other explanation.

Other theories are concerned with threat from outside, like the
Dacians or the Germans who were challenging the security of the
Celtic settlements, driven by overpopulation after a period of
migration.

This might have been of concern for the people living near these
tribes, but hardly for the Celtic population living close to the Alps.
But something obviously must have happened if suddenly large settlement
concentrations appeared. Certainly there was an increased social power
(Woolf, 1993), which made it possible that fortifications could
be build and large settlements evolved in them.
Audouze (1992: 242)
have a different explanation:

However, we believe that we can distinguish in the characteristics
of the oppida the signs and motivations that go beyond the
need for defence. By going back to earlier hillforts or
installing themselves in similar upland locations the Gauls resumed
an older tradition.

They see in the creation of the oppida the wish to hold on to old
traditions, but also the wish to delineate an urban space, separated
from the countryside.
I am not sure whether I could agree that the oppida were planned as
towns, but certainly they were planned, and the vast area they can
include seems to indicate that a lot of settlement activity is expected.
At the Dünsberg we also have evidence that a formerly fortified site
was chosen again to be used as settlement area. The inner
fortification is most probably of Late Bronze Age / Early La Tène date.
Settlement
remains dating to this period have been found inside the fortified area.
Then there was a break in the settlement activity, which started again,
maybe in the Middle, but certainly in the Late La Tène period.

Surely this does not explain everything, but new and more likely ideas
are needed to find the answer to why the oppida emerged.

1 I will follow the terminology of
Reinecke, when mentioning
relative chronology. A lookup table for his terminology will be
presented in appendix chronology.

2 Manching is here as so often an exception, it is
situated in lowland area, and existed at first as an undefended
settlement nucleation, which was only enclosed by a murus gallicus after a
major military disaster.

4Zangentore are according to
Collis
definition over 20 m long, but Dehn and
Endert define them as follows:
rampart ends were
turned back at right-angles into the interior to edge the entrance
ways, the length of the entrance way is not mentioned.

5 Outside these regions only
the Magdalensberg and Závist provide complicated
fortifications.

6 For example on the Dünsberg, where
Reeh maps platforms to the west and south of the
fortified area (even though it is not attested that these platforms
are contemporary with the oppidum).

7 This is also supported by
findings from the Magdalensberg
(Collis, 1975).

8 The question whether
Viereckschanzen are really cult related sited is vividly
discussed. K. Schwarz had based on his excavation in Holzhausen
(1957-1963) argued that Viereckschanzen are cult related, this
had been the standard interpretation for some time, until recently.
Webster already doubted the cultic significance of these
sites, and in a new publication (Günther Wieland (ed.), Keltische
Viereckschanzeneinem Rätsel auf der Spur, Stuttgart:
Theiss Verlag 1999.) they are rather interpreted as
places for living, production, storage and shelter. Unfortunately I
could not get hold of this publication, my information is based on
http://www.theiss.de/AiD/2000/1/buch1.htm.

12 Estimates were made on the
amount of animal bones found in Manching, otherwise the population
size may be estimated by regarding the amount of buildings on the
site. These methods can only give a rough indication of the real
population size as most of the sites are not sufficiently
excavated.